Anders Logg wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 02:24:13PM +0200, Dag Lindbo wrote: >> Anders Logg wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 01:34:24PM +0200, Martin Sandve Alnæs wrote: >>>> 2008/4/11, Anders Logg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:23:15PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Anders Logg wrote: >>>>> > > Which one do we want to use for element access in vectors and >>>>> > > matrices. It looks like operator() is now implemented for >>>>> uBlasVector, >>>>> > > but isn't operator[] more natural to use? >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> > Much the same to me. We've used (.,.) for matrices, so it seems natural >>>>> > to use (.) for vectors. >>>>> > >>>>> > Garth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We could use [] for matrices also I guess. >>>>> >>>>> Then it will look the same as numpy. >>>> It's useful to index vectors with [], since the code will be similar >>>> for regular arrays. >>> I forgot something important, namely that operator[] expects exactly >>> one argument, so we can't do A[i, j] for matrices. >>> >>> Maybe then it's better to have () both for vectors and matrices? >>> >> Whatever you do with matrices, I don't have an opinion. >> >> However, I think operator[] should be present for vectors. One can argue >> that it does not _need_ to be there, but the fact is that it _is_ in the >> 0.7.2 interface (it worked until yesterday for uBlasVector, but it was >> maybe handled by uBlas itself?). >> >> /Dag > > Other opinions? Should we have both? > > Since we have A(i, j), it will be expected that x(i) works. > > But it will also be expected that x[i] works (since it works in numpy > and it has worked before for uBlasVector). >
Having both is fine with me. It can be a little confusing in the code because one might expect that a(2) and a[2] do different things. Garth _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
